On 6/30/11 4:39 AM, Patrick Logan wrote:
> If you are interested in serialization of graph structures generally
> without specific semantics, that's fine. I don't find that so
> important, obviously YMMV.
How can that be true if I am seeking Linked Data whereby Object Names
resolve to Representations (EAV/SPO bearing Resources) of their
Referents? It isn't about semantics its all about semantic fidelity. Is
this a zero sum affair?
RDF has semantics that add fidelity to Linked Data graphs, for example:
data type handling and locale matters via language tags.
Why do you think RDF in anyway has a monopoly over semantics? Why do you
think that an EAV/SPO triple serialized in a non RDF format somehow
loses fidelity? Do you think RDFS and OWL semantics cannot be expressed
in any other form outside RDF's family of syntaxes?
Where is this coming from?
Kingsley
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 6/29/11 10:24 PM, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>> That's an interesting presentation. Most of what I saw was familiar to
>>> me. But I just swallowed it whole and have not fully digested it.
>>> Nevertheless, the main things it speaks to *here* are:
>>>
>>> 1. RDF is more than syntax
>>> 2. Having a JSON serialization for RDF is not going to change the
>>> world for anyone
>>> 3. Although it would be handy for some of us, in some cases
>> How about: we can make Linked Data graphs using a JSON based syntax. We can
>> use JSON to serialize Linked Data graphs. In both cases, Zero mention of
>> RDF. At the end of the day, RDF is really an orthogonal matter re. Linked
>> Data. There is nothing about Linked Data that's specific to RDF (syntax,
>> model that underlies sytnax, serialization formats). There have and swill
>> always be many mechanisms for expressing and serializing EAV/SPO based
>> graphs.
>>
>> KIngsley
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/29/11 4:22 PM, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 2011 1:27 AM, "Kingsley Idehen"<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Why does it need "RDF" in there? Ditto "Microformats" and "Microdata" ?
>>>>> Those are> all about alternative syntaxes that can be used to achieve
>>>>> the
>>>>> same goal.
>>>> I can see that is true if by RDF you mean an RDF serialization. When I
>>>> see
>>>> the term "RDF" I interpret that to mean the whole of the semantic web
>>>> standards, which are at least as much about (varying levels of)
>>>> semantics.
>>>>
>>>> Do most people view "RDF" as syntax rather than semantics?
>>>>
>>>> Therein lies the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I encourage you to digest this John. F. Sowa presentation [1].
>>>>
>>>> I would also say MF and MD have their own (more limited) semantics, and
>>>> they
>>>> do not completely coincide.
>>>>
>>>> What am I not getting here? These do not seem significantly
>>>> interchangeable
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> Digest the Sowa presentation :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Links:
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/iss-1 -- Integrating Semantic
>>>> Systems
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> President& CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> President& CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen